SIS Forum

The SIS is the oldest and most up to date society for catastrophist research, including ancient history, astronomy, mythology, science and the Electric Universe. It produces two publications, holds events, and offers a variety of related books. Website...

The Forum is provided for both SIS members and non-members to discuss topics relevant to the Society's work. It also provides the opportunity for non-members to ask questions about the Society’s work and/or published material. All posts are moderated before inclusion. No attachments are permitted.

The idea that the ancients were not aware of the existence of the relatively advanced civilisation of Atlantis is beyond belief - mine anyway . Homer was proven correct about Troy and is so about Atlantis. There was a wonderfully detailed TV presentation by a lady scientist who enthused that Thera could have been this mystic isle. Clever though the idea is I cannot credit it. To accept it means that people as close as Malta, Italy and Libya would have no artifact relating to trade with such a close neighbour, no legends about them. Unlikely. Legend claims that the isle was situated ‘near’ the Gibraltar region, probably in the Atlantic. We are here looking at events of fourteen thousand years ago when the Earth experienced many catastrophe’s. The disappearance of an Atlantic island could, in the company of other catastrophic events pass relatively unnoticed and their sudden disappearance become the stuff of legend. This could hardly be if Thera was their home. The Med would have been like Oxford Street with Selfridges at its middle. Its sudden disappearance would have far reaching affects on trade and political attitudes. Such a community would have hosted a powerful fleet and probably, a strong, well equipped military force as well. The threat of piracy or foreign aggression would surely force them to use these security measures. So, if Thera was the place its absence would have would have been a big influence. But if Atlantis was in the Atlantic it would be 2-3000 miles away. This makes a huge difference, especially in those distant days, does it not? So until a comprehensive undersea exploration can prove otherwise, the Atlantic is odds on. I have long believed in the idea that the Earth is constantly expanding. This expansion would readily account for the tremendous forces necessary to cause continents to split apart and then ‘leg it’ for thousands of miles, concurrently with the formation of relatively new sea floor (200 million years). Aside from anything else, the simple fact of a significant increase in the circumference in only a dozen years or so. What does this amount to after 4500 billion years (accepting that the levels of accretion may vary). However much or little can never be established, increase there is! There are several complex attempts to explain the far more significant actual expansion itself. Accretion itself can never move continents! None of these are satisfactory - hard evidence, beyond one indisputable fact - is not yet available. The one fact (well, two!) is that the continents have shifted and the sea floor is new. If you are a mathematician - you may worry about the way this could be theoretically explained - I’m not. The important thing is that it has happened -in nature maths may allow us a measure of probability but that is all. I think we just don’t have the physics right. Assuming current beliefs, the twisting force applied to an Earth rotating at around 1000 mph, moving on a molten core, must play a significant part. This would have a powerful West to East ‘drag’ effect. On the basis that the core revolves both faster and slower than the mantle some stress differences would seem inevitable. Assuming there were original fractures at continental boundaries giving them some separation, these fractures would constitute weaknesses in the original structures. Obviously not only is this the most probable site of any split but must also be where the mid-ocean trenches first appeared. This would seem self evident. I affirm that no matter what the maths might suggest, this movement happened and the process, whatever that may have been, must have conformed to the laws of physics. Our failure to find this explanation is due to a misinterpretation of elements of physics that has allowed frankly silly ideas to dominate current cosmological theory.This brings me to the evident increase in the gravity of the Earth and the disappearance of the Dinosaurs 60 million years ago. It is apparent that these animals were huge. It is also apparent that they could move much as do modern creatures. Their weight was also immense. In today’s gravity they could not stand, barely move. They did, so again - forget the arithmetic – gravity then must have been less than now. As gravity was less then it is almost certain that the Earth was also rather smaller than it is today. I find it hard to understand why some people dispute these, plain as day facts. There is no other solution to these problems – they have happened! Acceptance of these facts will demand a newer, more realistic approach to physics that will result in the abandonment of fantasy that is responsible for our failure to advance our knowledge. I favour the philosophy that claims that if it can happen, it will and if it cannot – it won’t! This approach must include a re-examination of the claims made in relation to Redshift and ‘the Expanding Universe’. Hubble suggested (but never claimed to have proved ) that Redshift could be a measure of the speed of light. It is impossible, because of the distances involved to prove that this is the case – therefore it is an assumption. Hubble himself later expressed his doubts about this and I would be grateful if someone could find the reference to this – I have lost it. A part of what Hubble did say is from his lecture about this. I quote:

“We can now formulate the law of nebular distribution on the assumption that the nebulae are not rapidly receding. The energy-corrections corresponding to red-shifts at the limits of the various surveys exactly compensate for the apparent thinning out in the World Picture. Numbers of nebulae are strictly proportional to the volumes of space they occupy. If the universe is not rapidly expanding, the observable region is thoroughly homogeneous out as far as accurate surveys have been extended. This important conclusion is derived by comparing simple counts of nebulae with measured luminosities, corrected by energy-factors which must be applied to such measures regardless of cosmological theory. The uniform distribution is a plausible and welcome result. Homogeneity within our sample seems so plausible, in fact, that it has often been adopted as a preliminary assumption. The apparent distribution indicated by the crude observations is then described as a true, uniform distribution plus apparent departures from uniformity. The apparent departures can be expressed as corrections to the measured luminosities of nebulae at the limits of the various surveys, and these corrections, in turn, can be compared with the red-shifts at the same limits.”So – Hoyle was right and an expanding Universe and the Big Bang, etc, etc, are bunk!Adding to the proof of the establishment misinterpretation of Redshift, I refer to the well known observations of the late Alton Harp. Speculative theories, unsupported by theory, let alone evidence, bring only discredit to conventional thinking cosmologists and scientists alike.

John raises so many questions with this posting that it is difficult to know what to respond to.

I agree that the Atlantis story must be based on fact and that a city that was probably located in the Atlantic was almost certainly drowned during a cosmic catastrophe. However, the reported war between the rulers of this city and the Greek city of Athens, which was apparently seriously damaged at the same time, suggests to me that the dating of the catastrophe was much more recent than the 14,000 years BP that he mentions in his posting. I don’t know who changed the dating of the catastrophe from 90 years before Solon was told about it to 9,000 years before; the possibilities are the Egyptian who told Solon the story, Solon himself when he told Critias the elder, Critias when told his 10 year old grandson or Critias the younger when he told his friend Plato. The 10 year old is the most likely suspect.

The catastrophe 90 years before Solon’s visit to Egypt was the Venus inversion that I date to 674 BC. This, as can be seen in my forum posting under “Stratigraphic Comparee et Chronogie de L’Asia Occidentale” is when I date the catastrophe that saw the end of the Late Bronze Age and of Mycenaean civilisation in Greece. This was the time of the Trojan War when the Phoenicians were fighting the Greeks which accords with the Atlantis story. Well before 674 BC the Phoenicians had established themselves at Carthage and were ruling much of North Africa which also fits the story. They also had a well established tin trade with Britain and in all probability an Atlantic depot near Cadiz that was swamped by the inversion flood and drowned by a post inversion sea level change.

The theories of Peter Warlow and Wal Thornhill provide scientific support for such a catastrophe.

I have no comment to make about the expanding Earth idea, except to say that suggested solutions to the problems he raises about moving continents must conform to the laws of physics, as must the uplifting of mountains in the quite recent past. I can’t see how an expanding Earth theory possibly can.

With regards the dinosaurs, the largest of which were some 15 times heavier than a large elephant, I agree that reduced gravity is the only possible explanation. My letter in SIS Workshop 2010:2, reproduced below, shows my solution. I would be interested to hear any comment on its scientific validity.

Dear Reader

Recently, when discussing LaGrange points at an SIS Study Group meeting, I asked Laurence Dixon what the mathematical formula was for calculating, for a 2 body system, the separation of the cosmic bodies for any given percentage reduction in gravity experienced at the surface of the smaller body. At a LaGrange point the gravity of one body exactly offsets the gravity of the other so if the surface of the smaller were at the LaGrange point it would experience zero gravity. Gravity at the surface of the smaller body would increase as the separation between its surface and the LaGrange point increased.

When Laurence sent me the mathematical formula I input the current mass and radius data for Saturn and the Earth and it would appear that at a separation of 21 times the radius of Saturn, gravity at the surface of the Earth would be 20% less than it is at present. Assuming that a 20% reduction in gravity was enough to allow mammoths and mastodons to grow to twice the size of the largest modern elephant, as their carcasses show they did, this would appear to be the order of separation between the Earth and Saturn when the Earth was in the axial-locked orbit of Proto-Saturn suggested by Dwardu Cardona in his books God Star and Flare Star.

For the largest dinosaurs to grow to the massive size that we know they did, gravity must have been much less. Using the same mass and radius data, Laurence’s formula shows that at a separation of 7 times the radius of Saturn, gravity at the surface of the Earth would have been one third of its current level. As I don’t think that the dinosaurs could have achieved their extraordinary size at any higher gravity, I have to conclude that the Earth was once in a very close orbit of a much larger neighbour and, given the depth of sediment deposits laid down during the time the large dinosaurs first evolved and then lived on the Earth, that it remained in such an orbit for a very long time.

Hello Peter. thank you for taking an interest in my post. I included the small variety of subjects as I believe they are inextricably linked. The recognition that the universe is not expanding and therefore that the imposed interpretation of redshift is mistaken and must surely affect the arithmetic quite seriously, as it would mean that many otherwise widely accepted ideas are wrong. I am not an expert but the arguments put forward for an expanding Earth seem conclusive - irrespective of the perhaps unsound use of mathematics to prove nature cannot do it. Nature couldn't care less (literally!) and does things whether we like it or not. I think you would agree fully with that. My most recent acquaintance with Expanding Earth theory has been in reading 'Dinosaurs and the Expanding Earth' (Third Edition) by Stephen Hurrell. Regardless of arithmetic (at which I am useless) no other theory can explain the remarkable continental fit that can be found by condensing mother Earth. Virtually all 'problems'' about how in heavens name massive continents can drift apart for thousands of miles, with geological and flora similarities in particular which respond to no other theory. The gravity problem solves itself, not needing the unprovable (though possible) Saturn connection to explain it. I would add that I favour some close or closer Saturn connection, but...

Aside from anything else - no-one answers - but all ignore the accretion of material - not from volcanoes, that has expanded the circumference of the Earth and buried civilisations and god knows what else, metres deep below. Your input on Atlantis and Solon is greatly appreciated. I cannot usefully join the debate about which date should be the better choice, but feel that the ancients were keenly aware of time, particularly as they had no known recording method beyond passing on keenly accurately remembered accounts, usually word for word (a religious duty) their history, to dedicated successors. You may argue that the veracity of their accounts cannot be verified, but the opposite also applies -they cannot be seriously challenged. The 14000 years I referred to includes the years 1-2000 AD, perhaps I should have made that clearer. So - it's 12000BC + 2000AD.

I did not answer the query - shown here in quotes -"moving continents must conform to the laws of physics, as must the uplifting of mountains in the quite recent past. I can’t see how an expanding Earth theory possibly can."

Frankly I do not see that at all. Taking the example of marks on a balloon. blow up the balloon - presto - the marks move apart! Of course the Earth is not a balloon and powerful forces (not compressed air!) are at work.

The facts are: 1. That the continents have moved and the following comments relate particularly to the Americas. 2. That the principal direction of movement is east to west, driven by our easterly (clockwise) rotation - though such expansion would occasion some north/south movement. 3. There is/must be - resistance to overcome. 4. Resistance (in this scenario) must occur at the western edges. 5. Mountain building would result and is all on the western edges. 6. There are few (if any) mountains on the eastern sides (little resistance (obviously)). 7. This a strong indication (no more nor less) that the outer mantle does - from time to time - rotate at a different speed relative to the Core. This must create a friction between them 8. There is also a likelihood that, apart from the inevitably catastrophic effects induced by this movement, there may well be added pressures generated by the close passage of heavenly bodies (or even a long term association with, for example, Saturn). 9. Without an expanding Earth, it is very, very difficult to see or understand how, for example, the South American continent can have strolled over three thousand miles - a warm, casual, several million year jaunt? 10. Lastly - What laws of physics make the above unlikely, let alone impossible? What is your alternative theory?

John is right when he says that in the Americas the (recent) continental movement was to the west and that it was responsible for the raising of the mountain ranges on the western edges of North and South America. However, in Europe, Africa and Asia the most recently raised mountain ranges appear to have been uplifted by plate movements to the north.

Currently the Earth experiences gravity that is principally generated by its own mass, but also to a much lesser degree generated by the Sun and the Moon. It also experiences centrifugal force generated by its rotation. Peter Warlow in his book, The Reversing Earth, Dent 1982, page 108, The Flood Proper, says that this outward acting force amounts to only one third of one percent of gravity, but despite its relative weakness it is responsible for the creation of an equatorial bulge. It is presumably the liquid mantle material that has moved under the influence of the Earth’s centrifugal force to create this bulge with the solid continental plates redistributed as required. While the creation of the bulge could account for some westward movement of the Americas its magnitude is too small to have been of any real significance; the difference between the equatorial and polar radii is only 21.5 kilometres. This quite obviously had little influence on a 3,000 mile westward stroll of the South American continent.

The Earth is actually pear-shaped with a lithic bulge to the north that Dwardu Cardona in an SIS conference presentation that was published in SIS Review 2,000, attributed to a residual effect of the Earth having had, within mankind’s memory, a close relationship with a proto-Saturn that was located / stationed to the north. A critic said that the lithic bulge should be much larger than it currently is if Cardona’s timescale were to be believed. However, my theory about the recent birth of the Moon (see my SIS Workshop 2007:2 paper and my March 2013 SIS forum posting under the heading “the formation of the solar system”) explains why the residual bulge at the North Pole is not much larger; the molten mantle material that solidified to form the Moon was drawn out of the northern hemisphere of the Earth. The gravity of a close-by proto-Saturn stationed to the north would certainly provide the force needed to attract the Earth’s landmasses to the north and to uplift the Alps, Pyrenees, Atlas and Himalaya mountain ranges.

The Alps and the Himalayas are unquestionably young mountains with former seabed material uplifted to their peaks. An expanding earth theory cannot account for this. Under this theory the continental landmasses would presumably have been driven apart not driven together.

Warlow wrote about surveys of the sea floor of the Atlantic that had revealed a pattern of bands of normal and reverse magnetic polarity of various widths on both sides of the Mid-Atlantic ridge. He explained how when molten magma emerges at the ridge it spreads out on either side and as it cools any magnetic fragments in the new rock are locked into magnetic alignment with the Earth’s magnetic field at the time. Thus as new ocean floor was formed it effectively became a giant tape-recording of the history of reversals of the Earth’s magnetism. Geologists think that the formation of new ocean floor is a slow process because currently only a few centimetres are produced a year, but Warlow presented evidence that suggests that there was a reversal as recently as around 700 BC. This implies that for some reason formation of new ocean floor in the North Atlantic has averaged some 5.5 metres a year for the past 2,700 years and that formation of new floors of other oceans has averaged quite a lot more.

Warlow suggested that distortions of the Earth during inversion and “tilt” events had “thrown” the Earth’s tectonic plates apart “with a small residual movement of the sort we see today persisting for some time after the event.” A tilt may have caused more ocean bed spread than a full 180 degree inversion, because after a tilt the molten mantle material would have had a lot longer to respond to the centrifugal force that encouraged the equatorial bulge to re-position itself. Warlow suggested that the Earth had experienced quite a number of tilts along what he called the Earth’s “secondary equator” on or near the 60 degree west and 120 degree east longitudes. He did not attempt to date any of these, but the magnitude of the ocean floor spread since the last inversion suggests that quite a number of tilts post-date the last inversion. Of course the Earth’s own gravity must have an influence on tectonic plate movements as it must all the time be trying to spread the solid landmass more equally around the world.

Warlow thought that external forces generated by a passing cosmic body supplied the torque force needed to drive Earth inversions and tilts. He believed that the external force must have been the gravity of a passing cosmic body, but electromagnetic forces of Wal Thornhill’s Electric Universe theory, that are many millions of times stronger than gravity, are a more likely provider of the external force needed to initiate and drive Warlow tilts and inversions. Electromagnetic forces of Wal Thornhill’s Electric Universe theory generated between the Earth and another cosmic body almost certainly also contributed to the recent rapid movements of the world’s landmasses. Certainly the historical record associates major earthquakes with cosmic events and throughout history people have been terrified by unusual sightings in the heavens.

Thank you Peter for you interest and, more importantly, your input. The state of the so called sciences of Cosmology and Geology are remarkable in an age of instant communication, in that the currently accepted bases on which they rely are remote, sometimes in the extreme, from an obvious reality. If and when I have the time (and the energy!) I will post an assault on the ‘conclusions’ drawn by the ‘Geologists’.

I will mention here a most significant fallacy. Whilst the ‘philosophy' (certainly not scientific theory) promoted by Lyell is not now the order of the day, its ‘overhang’ has encouraged the formation of ‘explanations’ that have no more concrete explanatory value than, literally, anyone else’s!

They have, with dragging feet, been forced to acknowledge what Cuvier started, the idea that catastrophic events have shaped the Earth. This had soon been overborne by Lyell and the slowly, slowly school. I learned, some 70 years ago, when my then acceptance of the ‘improved’ Lyell geology was shattered, excited then renewed by Velikovsky in “Worlds in Collision” and “Earth in Upheaval” which so plainly discredited the entire current teachings of Cosmology and Geology. In my view, this made it clear that my then intention to study both, could only result in my becoming an accredited expert in falsehood and demagoguery and prove a colossal waste of time.

These out of date, out of touch sciences were vigorously defended and the ideas and personality of Immanuel Velikovsky were viciously attacked. His view of the comparatively recent birth of the planet Venus and the cataclysmic consequences for Earth, though well known, will bear some further apparently unrecognised salient points, in which I intend, partially, to confound his distracters, but mainly to touch upon factors that do not seem to have occurred to those who claim to ‘know’.

Remarks I made in some earlier post lamented the long continued paucity of information about the actual composition of the Gas Giants, in particular Jupiter. I had access only to a few radio programmes and speculative newspaper comments, so ate up Velikovsky for breakfast, dinner and tea! My own extension of the logic of Velikovsky’s thesis, convinced me that to produce Venus the core of Jupiter must, of necessity, be of extremely ancient rock, else Venus could not have been borne of Jupiter! The logic indicated that a Gas Giant could not exert such massive gravitational energy without a solid core. But this, in those long gone days was unproven. Even unmentioned. Velikovsky too was vague on this.

The eventual discovery that the basic composition of Venus was of rocky foundations and that these were Earthlike, millions of years old came as a very satisfying conclusion that my forecast was spot on and finally removed all doubt of the truth and insight of this truly great man. The heating and cooling of rocky material will leave it (I understand) largely unchanged. So a very violent eruption, probably triggered by collision with a large Solar body, also posited by the tales of the ancients who saw Venus born, would readily explain the ejection of some of its ancient rocky core.

I suggested recently on the Forum that the core of Jupiter must be relatively solid, otherwise the ejection of a comet (come planet) composed of such material would be impossible! The reality is that it is basically hard volcanic rock and boiling hot. It would otherwise be entirely gaseous and rapidly dispersed by the Sun and the other planets. I am amazed that the great man did not make such an obvious a conclusion into a huge point! Perhaps of course I missed it but he certainly did not mention it in Worlds in Collision. It is my view that there can be no other rational answer to what otherwise is a Venus riddle The absolute nonsense mooted about the ‘greenhouse’ affect defies known physics with a fantasist zeal. It just does not apply on Earth or Venus.

What passes for geology fantasises about ancient folk, in numbers, entering N. America via the Bering Strait - just about the most impassable and inhospitable region imaginable - ice bound and totally free of land wildlife! Just to survive with ample supplies would have been an incredibly difficult and unlikely event. This false geological idea predicated the first ‘Americans’ to be Asiatics, but the archaeologists have shown very clearly that the first were European, maybe also African in origin. They have discovered hearth fires and weaponry dating back 30-40,000 years. One look at a native ‘Red Indian’ photographed in the late 1800s reveals Caucasian, Nordic features - no slant eyes. Yes, the Asians did arrive and spread but not before about 12,000 - 14,000 years ago.

Whilst we must acknowledge and respect the seafaring and navigational abilities of even the most ancient seashore dwelling communities, attempting to cross what can be some 2,000 to 3,000 miles in an open boat, then sending info back to encourage others implies a level of madness foreign to human history. The archaeology is sufficiently proven so as to brook no rebuttal. Therefore the only rational possibility is that land or land bridges occupied a vast tract of the now fully fluid Atlantic Ocean, allowing a relatively easy passage to the west by man and animal alike, including elephants!

A slightly newer take on continental geology c. 1925, posing the idea that this land bridge was available at times and in the historic era of the ancient Greeks et al, suggests that the sea floor has risen to provide such a habitable land on a number of occasions. As Plato recorded, the land of Atlantis (most certainly not a myth) “was larger than Libya and Egypt combined!” When this plateau was submerged, the passage from the Mediterranean was ‘difficult’. Sandbars and weed along with radically changed sea currents were added hazards. Even today, this ‘shelf’ rises some 9,000 feet above the ocean bottom, leaving the bulk of it, bar a few mountain top islands, still several thousand feet beneath the sea. Where is ‘Geology’ in this scenario - nowhere.

When this picture is revealed we can readily account for the Sargasso Sea, which has been gradually shrinking for ages, now about a half to a third of its known original acreage. Plato is told by Critias, via Solon that this land was known to have risen and descended several times!

These glimpses of history and a newer take on geology are, to a large extent supported and – I think – verified by several books I have previously referred to, these include several by Velikovsky, one major but totally ignored volume “The History of Atlantis” 1925, by Lewis Spence, which, prior to Velikovsky rates highly the ancient wisdom as fact not fiction. In the “Dinosaurs and the Expanding Earth” by Stephen Hurrell, One Off Publishing 2011. Durrell discusses the change in Earth’s gravity and how an expanding world can account for dramatic geological disruption, of animal and human re-settlement. The geographic movement is more fully explained in “Roots of Cataclysm” where Richard R Welch propounds his ‘Geopulsation Theory’.

This idea (if I have it right) suggests that the rotation of the Earth, does, as I have previously, suggested, influence the ups and downs of mid-ocean land bridges, the ‘drifting’ of continents to the North, South, West and even East, allowing man free movement to particularly, the American continents. If, as seems certain, such a relatively huge land surface has existed and the now sunken land is some thousands of feet below the sea, surely if it was ever habitable, it must have been above sea level. If so, ipso facto, it must have sunk a long way in what simply must have been catastrophic circumstances, precisely as the elderly Sais Priest said to Solon :

“ …But in later time after there had been exceeding great earthquakes and floods, there fell one day and night of destruction and the warriors in your land all in one body were swallowed up by the Earth and in like manner did sink beneath the sea and vanish away. Wherefore, to this day the ocean there is impassable and unsearchable, being blocked by very shallow shoals, which the island caused as she settled down.”

Welch further, and more definitely, claims that the rotation of the Earth when faster, draws the seas away from the poles causing the land to freeze and much deeper waters in the remaining oceans. Ice ages would thus be triggered to develop. A thaw would result from a slowing rotation, with the attendant the return of warmer water to the north and south.

There cannot be any doubt that Earth’s rotation is at speeds that vary and are not always in time with the core revolutions. These altering speeds can in this way also account for mini-ice ages, temporary partial thaws and variation in day lengths.

Only now (in the big steal) do we see dramatic ‘discoveries’ made (without their authors apparently knowing there is an internet), that virtually everything Velikovsky claimed more than 70 years ago, is now an ongoing ‘Universal’ experience, with planetary collisions occurring all the time in the galaxies of the visible Universe. Further, they claim to have ‘discovered’ the rocky core of gaseous planets and that, in our case, Jupiter and Saturn have waltzed from the Solar periphery to near contact with the Sun and then trotted off home again. This planetary intrusion was also documented by Velikovsky!

I believe that Velikovsky, under the intense and lonely pressure he experienced in promoting such a sweeping, controversial new approach may well, for all I know, have compromised from time to time. He was, truly, a man alone answering an impassioned, even desperate need to challenge so much wrongly held belief that did nothing other than hold secure the social and international positions of fallible others (some great nonetheless – Hubble for one).

It is of no importance whatever if astronomers and geologists are ‘up a gum tree’. It is of the greatest importance if Velikovsky and his view is the more correct - not necessarily right all the time but more correct. This controversy puts him in the position of a latter day Copernicus, Galileo or Kepler. For 2000 years , following the disastrous influence of yet another great man - Aristotle - the field of science made virtually no progress. BUT - once the Sun replaced Earth, science took another, very close look at ideas that are somewhat nearer the truth. The modern world started (historically) almost immediately and in less than 350 years since its acceptance industry, railways and flight transformed the world and in 1945 the atomic bomb became a real, terrifying force.

No-one is ever unfailingly absolutely right and we should judge our heroes is this light. The history of science is and will doubtless continue to be one of reasonable ideas that are - have always - been in some measure short of the reality. That is how we progress. This makes it imperative for defenders and innovators to fight hard, but the fight in searching for an improved understanding must be fair or the offender disqualified. There is much more to be said, but what I am eager to see is a wider response to posted views - this is why I adopt a controversial, aggressive style. Please fight back!

The possible locations of the not so mythical Atlantis include the (sometime) island of Tore some hundred or so miles west of Lisbon. The evidence for this is the Tore Seamount sited on the Atlantic sea bed some twelve thousand feet down. It has a huge caldera and the rims reach up 6000 feet, plainly the remnant of a supervolcanic eruption. This eruption would have completely destroyed its upper reaches, possibly as much as the top 2,000 yards. This one would have been on a scale with Thera, and probably very much larger. It would account for otherwise inexplicable deposits currently assumed to be from Thera, but they are from a hundred years earlier. The still largely clear flat plain of the caldera is evidence of its relatively recent (1640 BC), eruption. These sites fill in eventually.

Being located well out to sea, its consequences and much of its effect was swallowed at a gulp, by the deep ocean, wiping out life and leaving few distant witnesses. The subsidence entailed would have been noticeable only by provinces near Gibraltar (the Pillars of Hercules).

There is little modern reference to this catastrophic event which involved the submergence of a probably huge mass of land (parts of which were already under the water). All that is left are a few island mountain tops like the Azores. This event is what is thought by many (me included) to explain the virtually instantaneous disappearance of Atlantis, its people and a large Greek Army that was battling the Atlanteans. Just went ‘phutt’, without a solitary survivor.

In the absence of an appreciation of this probability, few volcanologists seem to realise the deposits referred to are not from the maybe century later Thera event. You have to research and analyse the reports of Plato and earlier records before the idea makes real sense. The weight and composition of the accumulated deposits I refer to must logically be from a local source. Dust, ash, yes – but heavier deposits defy gravity. Thera is well over a thousand miles from these particular deposits.

It is also seems quite probable that the somewhat mysterious appearance in Britain of the Beaker people is explained by their being marauding Atlanteans directly invading this land. Then they migrated across the landbridge into Northern France, Belgium et al. The reputed power of the Atlanteans would have resided in their being already advanced in the use of copper and access to natural brass to quickly make weapons both hardy and extremely sharp. A long, tedious process with flint and stone! They could speedily arm thousands rather than hundreds, with modern weapons.

It seems very likely that the Tore Seamount is the remaining tip of the super volcano, which would like the Yellowstone Park supervolcano, have a history. The subsequently very large flat centre is the result of the levelling off effect that follows the eruption. In virtual imitation of the sunken version, the surface island would likely have had a similar flattened caldera whose geographical properties closely matched the ancient description (made to Solon) of the area bounding the Atlantis capital: a flat plain largely shielded by precipitous high mountainous ‘edges’. This would also imply that the volcano had ‘blown’ sometime in the previous few thousand years, not having filled in, being comfortably above sea level.

The existing Seamount does so closely match this description, but personally I do not see that it could be - in truth - the then site of Atlantis, as such an ‘explosion’ would have completely destroyed it, creating a ‘new’ site. An added ‘draw’ favouring these ideas is the ancient Iberian Lusitania, a very close match to ‘the great plain of Atlantis’. A very fertile place indeed.

Remember, Atlantis being an island based empire, (this makes me think of a modern parallel! The British Empire!) they (like us) had need of a large and fertile supply source. There are other major interests: the profound implications inherent in the presence of a large, even if discontinuous land bridge would provide ready opportunities for travel to and from the Americas. No more need for theories involving fantastic voyages of extreme unlikelihood.

Stocking supplies for a voyage slowly covering even only a few hundred miles, meant all that could be managed (fish are simply not freely available in many areas of ocean) would soon run out and create a desperate, probably frantic, effort to get back home. The alternative – a still unknown - meant enduring days or weeks of a slow, thirsty, exhausting drag across a seemingly endless ocean. The energy, space and weight problems they faced were simply enormous.

The ancients were, of necessity, far from stupid. They were accomplished mariners and would have known well their limits from bitter experience. Later (possibly), such voyages were no longer just irrational, though still just as critically dangerous, but perhaps were made in the knowledge that land really existed beyond the then otherwise now empty ocean.

Added to this there is the unarguable fact, that without women how can you even begin to establish, let alone sustain a new ‘colony’? Why would anyone have imagined that there would be flourishing native populations waiting for them. Talk about pipe dreams! The only practicable possibility means they consisted mainly of families and you do not risk your whole family on a hunch.

Even after such a near impossible adventure, the establishment of a colony, let alone its continuance would face insuperable problems. This kind of ‘immigration’ simply does nothing to explain what we have learned of such widespread early population of the Americas.

The whole idea of far flung exploration of this type is seriously flawed by the chronic hazards that had to be overcome for barely any reason. The Bering Strait was blocked with mile high ice – no chance there. No – an Atlantic landbridge there must have been and in our common history, such land comes and goes many times.

I ask what actually can explain these up and down Earth movements? I certainly do not know, though like others I tend to subscribe to one theory or another. Those I favour relate intimately with disparities caused by differing rates of crustal and inner core rates of spin. It seems pretty likely that in the case particularly of a super volcanic eruption, the expulsion of millions of tons of lava, gas etc. would weaken the resistance below and the mass above, now even denser, would descend.

Would there be consequent compression changes that could result in any number of relatively small parallel under sea eruptions, creating a wider range of ‘descents’?

I am no geologist nor volcanologist and would very much like to learn what others might say on this and my other points.

Peter wrote:I agree that the Atlantis story must be based on fact and that a city that was probably located in the Atlantic was almost certainly drowned during a cosmic catastrophe. However, the reported war between the rulers of this city and the Greek city of Athens, which was apparently seriously damaged at the same time, suggests to me that the dating of the catastrophe was much more recent than the 14,000 years BP that he mentions in his posting.

~12,000 years ago is commonly referenced for "Atlantis," especially since work like Graham Hancock's, but I agree that the catastrophe was much more recent. I however believe this for different reasons than Plato. Plato's account of Atlantis comes to us from the hands of medieval clergy who were notorious for forging documents. It is part of a much wider problem in ancient history, in that all of it (or almost all of it) comes to us through medieval clergy who were probably making at least as many frauds and forgeries as they were trying to make legitimate historical documents. And I say "trying" because even on their best days the historical methodologies of the medieval clergy would not get a passing grade in a modern university. To account for their political agendas and ideological campaigns when these manuscripts were created or "copied" with "corrections," as the clergy would euphemistically say, would a tall order.

For me the problem is that there is no evidence of civilization rebuilding and growing for the past 12,000 or 14,000 years. Archaeological sites in Europe, agrarian settlements specifically, that are dated back to 2000 BC are relatively few. We have basically nothing to suggest that post-Atlantean survivors have been rebuilding and regrowing populations for over 10,000 years. Especially in the archaeology of North America before Columbus, we are seeing populations that look like they have just moved into these areas for the first time only hundreds of years ago, rather than thousands. Before the catastrophe was a glacial maximum and most of North America was not particularly habitable, like much of Canada today. If the glacial maximum ended 12,000 years ago or more, then why does it look as through native populations only been migrating into the Ohio River Valley, or along the modern coast of Florida, only within the last hundreds of years, rather than thousands?

The cyclopian/monolithic construction of Peru, for example, is something we date to before the cataclysm. We know people survived there after the cataclysm, abandoned their old ports that were no longer by water, and made the best of their situation with what implements they had on hand. But we don't see evidence for ten thousand years of habitation post-catastrophe until Europeans show up. And the survivors here could have easily migrated north into the now-fertile valleys of North America in a thousand years, and have over 10,000 more years to grow and develop before Columbus. But we see no indication that that's what happened. With a 10,000 year head-start it would have been the Americans visiting the Europeans. This is just way too much time and all of this must have been much more recent.

Whist I agree that Plato’s timing of 12,000 years BC is to be viewed with a critical eye, it cannot be so readily brushed aside. Aside from the account given by the already ancient priest to Solon, we have very little of record of such a super volcanic destruction of Atlantis and the Greek Army. I believe that what evidence we have, such as otherwise unaccounted for debris, is laid out in the book “Roots of Cataclysm” and “The History of Atlantis” referred to in my earlier posts. The geographic disturbance of Mother Earth has fostered then destroyed many a human civilisation – albeit, small ones.

This, as you may know, includes the near certainty that what amounted to an Atlantic landbridge (“ … larger than Libya and Asia”) has risen and fallen on several occasions. As yet this can be neither proved nor disproved, but - the evidence of human, animal and plant life, distinctly related to western origins, virtually proves that there must have been this access. 3,000 miles in an open boat was a phenomenal achievement by Captain Bligh 227 years ago – totally beyond the bounds, even of possibility, in such ancient days.

And yet … Remains of distinctly European ancestry have been found, dated as long ago as 30,000 BC, in lower South America and dotted around both the N. And the S. Continents. They cannot be ‘unfound’ by denial. To have survived and generated into the otherwise inexplicable emergence of large Native populations, bespeaks immigration on a substantial, long term scale.

Wherever the folk came from, (one look at a 19th century photo of a Red Indian betrays his Nordic origins) it was likely a case of hundreds, probably thousands, trekking from primarily North American, long established communities. The pyramid structures (some stones weigh 40 tons!) of the Aztecs show an amazing similarity to their Egyptian counterparts. Did Egyptians tell them or was it the other way around?

Impossible without a landbridge - ipso facto - there was a (not always available!) landbridge. It seems unlikely that this land was continuous, but had easy access by short sea passages to nearby land.

Any migration from Asia via the northerly route was blocked by numerous hugely difficult obstacles, not least a mile high ice plateau. Ancient man was adventurous, not totally stupid. It has been shown that Asiatic influence dates from around 12,000 BC. The end of the Ice age.

All this means that much may have been ‘going on’ 12,000 plus years ago. Human beings had become widespread throughout the world a very, very long time before that. Having, for example, found an idyllic land, not far off the coast of Portugal, that offered the best of possible living and climatic conditions, together with fertile pastures supporting both imported wildlife and farming, what was to stop them developing quickly, spurred on by the immediate availability of all they could need, plus access to both the new Western and older Eastern worlds and their riches.

Their prowess in war is explained by their access to both tin and natural bronze. They would have learned from nature that bronze was an amalgam and could readily produce large quantities of state of the art weaponry - very, very hard sharp points! This weaponry alone might account for several thousand years of local supremacy. This kind of mastery would likely prohibit the manufacture by enemies of similar weapons by dominating the areas of their source. However, this could not last and the Greeks waged a probably successful war against Atlantis, but all was lost in the super volcano that so completely destroyed all observable trace of both Atlantis and the Greek army.

A people so dominant as the Atlanteans could not arise over a few generations, such societies take several thousand years, suffering all the usual setbacks, until firmly established. By definition, firm establishment entails military and naval force of arms. Peace, even then, had a high price. As all civilisations have demonstrated, it is a case of expand or die.

A byword on the advent of writing. Whatever the state of presently recorded history, no society can form without rapidly developing this facility. So, probably much more has been lost than is thought.

The paucity of historic record is the legacy of world shaking disasters, one upon another. The tales of people wiped from the Earth by flood or earthquake - not to mention interplanetary calamity - beleaguers all human history – libraries containing heaven know what real records of long, long ago, all gone. Much is under the seas all over the shop. The ‘Book’ has yet to be written.

N.b. Those who ‘doubt’ Atlantis should consider what the odds are that Plato, the ancient priest or Solon, could invent the idea of such a landbridge or “the continent beyond” that ‘surrounds’ Atlantis.

How lucky can you get? A sweeping lie of land that does precisely that! Further - that coast must have been sailed - else how would they know?

It's roughly 12,000 years ago, not 12,000 BC. It was more like 10,000 BC and Plato's account, combined with conventional chronology, gives around ~9500 or so, from memory.

John, I have a question for you. Have you ever investigated how this dating of about 12,000 years ago was obtained in the first place? I am talking about the actual dating techniques themselves, and how they are supposedly able to scientifically arrive at the absolute dating of 12,000 years ago.

I know there are several methods of dating since carbon dating was developed, but they are all interdependent upon each other in some way, because the underlying theory behind them requires they first be calibrated with samples from "known" historical periods, before they can compare that data with test samples. This makes the supposedly scientific testing today still dependent upon the leading theories in various fields as they existed before discovering the possibility of scientific testing. For example, carbon dating in Egyptology is based on how the British-led academics assigned dates to artifacts in the 1800s, based on theories that have since been shown to be severely inadequate.

And yes, carbon dating is different in Egyptology in other fields because the resulting years have to be mathematically modified, by a set formula, before they are considered "correct," and even then they often throw samples out as "contaminated" or "erroneous" when they don't return the data they need. And all this is after labs after already told in paperwork submitted with the sample itself of what period the historians are expecting the artifact to date from, so neither are there "blind" conditions by any means. The samples are submitted in this way by archaeologists or whoever, to the lab technicians who they pay to do the analysis.

When I see so many things being dated back to around 10,000 BC, I can conclude nothing from that as to how long all of these things occurred in absolute terms, as in actual revolutions of the Earth around the Sun since that time. All I can conclude is that maybe there is a correlation and that these things all dated to that period probably really happened all around the same time. But as to how many years ago that actually was, in absolute terms, I wish you would investigate how they come up with these numbers.